From owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Sun May 6 07:10:10 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-bugs@hub.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6756106566C for ; Sun, 6 May 2012 07:10:10 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::28]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0F448FC0A for ; Sun, 6 May 2012 07:10:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q467AAmd073939 for ; Sun, 6 May 2012 07:10:10 GMT (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.5/8.14.5/Submit) id q467AA0c073933; Sun, 6 May 2012 07:10:10 GMT (envelope-from gnats) Date: Sun, 6 May 2012 07:10:10 GMT Message-Id: <201205060710.q467AA0c073933@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org From: Valentin Nechayev Cc: Subject: Re: kern/19402: Signals 127 and 128 cannot be detected in wait4() interface X-BeenThere: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Valentin Nechayev List-Id: Bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 06 May 2012 07:10:10 -0000 The following reply was made to PR kern/19402; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Valentin Nechayev To: bug-followup@FreeBSD.org Cc: Subject: Re: kern/19402: Signals 127 and 128 cannot be detected in wait4() interface Date: Sun, 6 May 2012 10:09:29 +0300 > You are correct here now, but not at the time I have issued the original > request. Values for SIGRTMIN, SIGRTMAX initially appeared only in > version 1.47 (Oct 2005) and was incorrect. Revision 1.53 reduced > SIGRTMAX from 128 to 126 exactly concerning this my PR. So, if we stick > on treating 126 as maximal possible signal number which doesn't break > existing ABI, all seems satisfied and I suggest simply to close it as > fixed. No need to change any more. Forgot to mention _SIG_MAXSIG which also should be reduced if used. -netch-